Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 3:08:23 to 3:29:16
Discussion on Defence Housing Australia's property portfolio followed by questioning on legislative changes to the military justice system.
Topics: Infrastructure, Law reform, ADF
Speakers: Speaker 3, Sara Gul, Speaker 1, Andrew Jaggers, Shane West, Lieutenant General Natasha Fox
>> That's all right. My pleasure. All right. On that note, thank you very much. Now, we're going to move on to Defense Housing Australia. Do you have any info on these guys? In the last 20 minutes, we've got Are we going to release the others? Do Do we need to? Yeah, but what about the others? >> Military Prosecutions, IGADF What about the Defense Veterans Services Commissioner? Can we let them go? All right. We've agreed to release the Defense Veterans Services Commissioner. Sorry about that, but have a good night. It's Jaggers. Hello.
>> Good evening.
>> Uh I'm glad you're still smiling. Um and did you have a did um did you have an opening statement?
>> Um uh chair, with your indulgence, I wouldn't mind making a very short statement of condolence.
>> Um I was just saying given the time, we could have you table it. We'll have it circulated to the committee, unless there's something that you really needed to verbalize.
>> No, that's okay. I don't have a a written form, but we can
>> But if you can get your office to Thank you. Photocopy an electronic version, I'd much appreciate that. All right. Uh Senator Collins, did you have a question
>> Thank you. Um it's just about uh the defense estate and the divestiture. Have you been engaged by uh Department of Defense or Department of Finance or scrutiny and state government Department of Defense in relation to any of the land that they will be selling?
>> Thank you, Senator. We have had some discussions with the Department of Defense and the Department of Finance in relation to the audit process or the the state sale process. We've had some engagement with Department of Finance since they have sort of taken charge of the matter. In relation to a number of sites of interest.
>> Okay, and which sites are of interest?
>> We've we've had some preliminary discussions with them and they Department of Finance is running a process in relation to the sale of those sites. So, I don't think it'll be appropriate for us to be signaling those sort of publicly and we we might be involved in procurement processes down the track.
>> Okay, I understand. Um Have you had any discussions about um remediation of sites and whose responsibility that would be?
>> I don't believe we've been discussing remediation of individual sites. Senator, we've we've probably had some general discussions with the Department of Finance because DHA has been involved in the remediation and preparation of sites for housing.
>> Did you say DDA or D?
>> DHA has >> has been involved in the remediation of a range of ex-defense sites in the past and so we've had some discussions with Department of Finance about those processes but as a more of a an informal exchange of information as a an agency that might be able to help with some knowledge in that space.
>> Okay, so how's it worked previously if you've if you've bought defense land that needed remediation, whose done the remediating?
>> So, we have bought sites or um um had sites provided to DHA in the past uh where DHA has managed the remediation of those locations.
>> Okay, so the ones that even the ones that you buy, you pay for, you um you've had to bear the cost of the remediation.
>> Well, I I um I'd imagine as a general principle the the state of the site is factored into the transfer arrangements and there have certainly been instances in the past where DHA has been given access to land without having to purchase it and and examples where there's there's been um some acquisition costs as well.
>> Okay. Um Darwin Barracks has been handed over to the Department of Finance. Um is part of the um are you have you been talking about that with Department of Finance?
>> Well, I think our conversations have been mostly of a general nature about the process. Yes.
>> I the evidence that was given to us last week um by Mr. West at a uh Defense Estate hearing was that uh he'd been in discussions with you about Randwick Barracks. Is that correct?
there are a number of sites where DHA has a um a current interest either looking after houses on those locations or where there had been a proposal previously put to DHA may assist with some development on site. So I think Randwick Barracks is one of those locations. So we'd expect some ongoing discussion um with Defense about that site.
>> What's the current need at the moment? How many houses does DHA need to build at the moment or need to buy?
>> Um so I'll ask um uh Mr. West our Mr. West not Mr. West from
>> I will I will make sure I differentiate.
>> some detail but we we currently have a um a portfolio that we um look after of around 17,800 homes and we have projections to grow that over the next three or 4 years and Mr. Weskin provide the the the the forecast.
>> Yeah, thank you. Shane Weskin. >> Executive General Manager, DHA. Uh yeah, that's right. So, we've got about uh just under 18,000 properties at the moment. Um we're we're actually in the throes of We We have an annual process with defense that um determines what the future requirements look like. We're in the throes of doing uh the most recent one at the moment, so we haven't formally responded to them on that. Um but, the the expectation is that I over the periods over the over the next 4 years, we'll grow the portfolio by somewhere around 1,500 properties, somewhere kind of 1,200 1,500. Um but, that number obviously is subject to an annual process, so may may change in subsequent annual processes as well.
>> So, 1,500 houses over 4 years. And is that um particularly around, you know, bases like Osborne, or are you Is that right across the country?
>> Uh there there it is concentrated on a on a in a number of regions. Yeah, it's still it's still um it's not universal, so there are a number of regions where there is a uh a higher requirement. Um yeah, Adelaide Osborne is one of those regions where we see where we see growth.
>> Yeah. And And do you have the space for it out there? Do you have the land that you need? Or is it going to be difficult?
>> Uh so, most of So, just to give you um if I take a step back for a moment. So, most of our portfolio about 2/3 of our portfolio is leased property, so not properties that we own. Um And going forward, what we expect you know, a similar proportion, if not slightly more, to to continue to be leased. Um so, it's not a matter of whether or not we've got the the land available, or or the ability to to build in the region. It's It's It's whether or not we can through a combination of acquisition and and or leasing and and and constructing ourselves in locations where we do have land. Um >> Yeah. >> And And that kind of varies as Mr. Jaggers as I before, we we we have a a range of sites that we have um previously obtained from defense where we will build on, um but they they are only um a limited number across the country.
All right. Well, thank you very much.
My pleasure.
>> I did wait for you.
>> Uh good on you, Mr. Jaggers. Thank you and your team. Have a good night. Now, we're going to have, before I get the Director of Military Prosecutions, Air Commodore Ghoul come to the table. So, we're just a bit pressed for time with the >> 12 minutes we have left.
>> All right. Are you RGADF?
>> Who? No, this is not RGADF. This is the Director of Military Prosecutions.
>> No, I'm just asking you, do you? No? Okay, I don't either, so.
>> So, no one has Director of Military Prosecutions?
>> No, I can ask that, but um the last one that
>> Okay.
>> RGADF, I don't
>> All right. Well, we'll welcome Air Commodore Sarah Ghoul. Is that right, Sarah? >> Sarah, it is. Ah. It always gives me the nerves though, that name. I love that name, but always I know families say, "No, it's Sarah, Sarah." I get told off if I say it's Sarah. But Sarah Ghoul, thank you, Sarah. Anyway, welcome. >> Thank you very >> to wait a bit long tonight, but um now, did you have an opening statement at all? >> Ah, fantastic. Now, Senator Collins, you've got some questions for Air Commodore?
>> I do. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
we just had recent legislative change, and I just wanted to understand it a bit better. I guess what was the problem we were trying to fix there? Uh you know, the the um the explanation of the legislation was that uh the government was trying to align the Defense Minister's powers with the Attorney General's powers. Um but are there any examples of where that was needed previously or might be needed in the future? Um yeah, what what what was the what's the problem that was really trying to fix there?
>> Look, Senator, ultimately that's not a matter for me, and that's because I'm the subject of potential directions, rather than the person conceiving why those directions might be needed. And if some context is helpful, I was appointed on the 10th of August this year, so I'm just over 2 months into the role, and um as I understand it, the discretion to commence or to discontinue prosecutions under section 87 of the Defense Force Discipline Act will remain at my discretion. But as to the intent of the intention of the legislature in introducing that section, ultimately, that's not a question for me.
>> But it it does say in the legislation that the minister will have the power to direct in relation to prosecutions. It's the words in the legislation as I remember them correctly. So, uh and and it was pretty specific in the way that it said uh that the DMP must comply with the direction. So, but you've just given the evidence that you will have discretion in that. So, how does that work if it's in the legislation?
>> Senator, Lieutenant General Fox, um in terms of the um changes to the uh act recently, uh and the ministerial guidelines, that was more about the efficient operation of the Director of Military Prosecutions. Um there is an annual report from the director. Um it's a ministerial appointment, so it is designed for that ministerial oversight. But the independence of the prosecutor on what they choose to prosecute and not as is as what um the DMP has said.
>> Okay, but I do remember very specifically, cuz I I went round round, in with uh the Minister's office as well on this and that. Yes, you're you're absolutely Lieutenant General, there was the first half of it was about the guidelines and the policy. That's right, and that's pretty straightforward. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. But, the second part was about uh being able to direct on prosecutions, which was the bit that stood out to me. And there was no wiggle room in that in terms of the discretion and the way that the language was set out. So, what? And I know you've only just been in the role for 2 months, and clearly you haven't been directed to prosecute anybody yet. Uh or stop prosecutions. but I'm just trying to understand why that particular clause was put into the Defense Act. What what problem was it trying to fix there?
>> Uh Senator, it was for parliamentary
>> Okay. So, uh closing, I I guess, the gap between the distance between the military justice system and the Parliament.
>> Uh and it's the similar to what the CDP has as well. So, it was bringing that in a comparative sense.
>> Yeah, but the CDP oversees the civil justice system.
>> Yeah.
>> The military justice system is by design separate, always has been. That's why we have Director of Military Prosecutions. But now, we've got an executive member that has power over the Director of Military Prosecutions. So,
>> Not for the purpose of the prosecution. Um that lies within the power of the Defense Act under the DMP.
>> But there there is that clause in that particular part, section part 10, I can't remember the schedule 5, part 10. Where the Minister can direct the DMP to begin or stop a prosecution What is in there? What that's what
>> Uh Senator, uh I'll take that on notice.
>> be great. Thank you very much. maybe while we're here, we could um >> [clears throat] >> the the the broadening of the definition of uh investigation officers, would that be in your remit?
>> It's not in my remit, Senator. Investigation sit more broadly with defense. Effectively, I don't own um investigations. I consider briefs once they've come to me from investigators.
>> Okay. All right. Another change in that particular bill was that the DMP could uh represent in a What sort of cases has the DMP needed to before and hasn't been able to do that? What sort of cases would that be in relation to? What What What's the necessity of that change?
>> Uh as I understand it, Senator, and I'll just bring up the section, the DMP has always been empowered to appear uh in effectively appellate-style proceedings. So, that's either appeal proceedings in the um the DEFT Act, the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Tribunal, or the Federal Court. Federal court matters generally come up when, for example, um a person is seeking a judicial review, or they're seeking a statement of what the law is and how it applies. So, um as I perceive it, the DMP has had that um ability to appear in that jurisdiction previously. Realistically speaking, it's something that's rarely rarely utilized or really needed.
Um has the government forecast any directions to you yet?
>> There's going to be a consultation process.
>> What on what?
>> On the directions.
>> Okay. What sort of directions?
>> Well, this goes back to your original question, which is um the power that the minister has to issue directions. The section is 188G A of the DFDA. As part of that, there'll be a consultation process as to what they contain and how they apply.
>> Oh, okay. So, um So, actually written into the legislation yet. You guys are still yet to design what the powers actually look like.
>> Mhm. And again, it's not for me to design, but I expect that I'll be consulted in respect of them.
How do you foresee the powers the the directions to look like? What do you What do you What do you think they're going to be?
>> Well, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to speculate, but as I understand it, the intention of the legislature is not to subvert my authority. It's to set down guidelines in respect of procedural matter, probity, record keeping and the like, but that section 87 of the DFDA means that I stay independent and that the discretion to prosecute or not will stay with me.
Um but that that consultation process hasn't happened yet. So, uh it's obviously clearly not set out in the legislation as it stands. That independence. I guess it's it's I mean, it's up to the negotiating power between the DMP and the
>> I wouldn't describe it as a relationship of negotiating power. Um they're directions that are to be issued to me. And um that will go through the ordinary process of consultation as I understand it when it comes to sitting down um legislative instruments, which is what this provision what these directions
>> So, what the directions will be what? Legislative instruments?
>> Yes, as I understand it, that was the amendment as I understand you sought on the last occasion, so that Parliament can disallow that instrument if a decision's made or a direction's made that doesn't meet the satisfaction of
before we get there, before the direction comes to you, so the direction come it has to come through Parliament and Parliament can or Senate can disallow it, but first you're going to you're going through a consultation process on what the directions look like, so um can you just give us a sense of the
>> Senator General Fox, my understanding is they're still being drafted and they're not ready for consultation.
What about the the the guidelines?
>> Perhaps I misperceived your question, Senator. That's what I thought we were talking about the guidelines.
>> Senator, they're the same thing.
>> Yes.
The amendment well, but it but in the in the actual legislation there were two parts to that particular section and one was about policy and guidelines and the other part was about directing relation to prosecution, so uh well, I I guess we'll just have to wait and see how those consultations pan out.
>> I think we're all a bit confused, but I'm sure on that note unfortunately we're about to hit 10:00, so um congratulations again anyway, Air Commodore.
>> Thank you very much, Chair.
>> No, on your appointment and we look forward to seeing your future estimates. Thank you to the other officials here today. Um on that note unfortunately the Uh >> [sighs] >> where's some of my notes have gone here? Yes, I know it's late tonight, so Inspector General ADF, I'm sorry, but um time has gone past us. It being 10:00 p.m. Um we are now having to adjourn today's uh hearing. Uh I did want to thank everyone, particularly Minister Watt, who's done an excellent job representing the Minister for Defense and Veterans' Affairs. I will certainly uh send my feedback form back um to our department secretaries, um Chief of the ADF, all the other defense officials, uh officers of the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs who we sadly did not get to see today, but we will at a future spillover. And all the other eyewitnesses have given evidence at today's hearing. Thanks Hansard Broadcasting and the Secretariat. Everyone, have a good night and I will now declare the hearing adjourned.